Saturday, 14 December 2013

(film review) - Black Nativity

So, I only saw this film because my friend told me about it. I might have seen the poster for it or something somewhere about it but had I not arranged to meet up with my friend who I haven't seen for a long time who suggested to see it, I would have not known about this film. It just didn't flag up on my radar nor was I really interested in it. But myself being myself, I thought I'd give this film a gander.

The film is about a young single mother Naima (Jennifer Hudson) who is dealing with difficult times and trying to raise her child at the same time. With news  that she will only have a matter of days left before she is evicted, she decides to send her teenage son, Langston (Jacob Latimore) to his estranged grandparents while she tries to deal with her problems.
Reverend Cornell Cobb (Forest Whittaker) and his wife Aretha Cobbs (Angela Bassett) take this young man in and try to steer his life in a positive way while he is with them, but whilst being away from his mother, Langston then discovers the dark secrets which were kept from him and why his grandparents are estranged.

I've probably made out like this film is much more interesting than it really is, but the long and short of it is, the film kinda sucks. I've seen some bad films in my day and this film is by far not terrible, but they could have done soo much better.

Firstly, before watching this film, you will need to comprehend and understand that this film is more of a musical than just a drama. Kind of like 'For Coloured Women', just not as deep. My friend said that the film was trash and a waste of time. Now, I wouldn't necessarily say the film was garbage, although it wasn't that great. The film did what it had to do and display the complexities in life, single parenting struggles and internal family politics, however, although we had great actors, the storyline and pacing struggles to keep you engauged. The script was decent, the singing was very good, but this film comes off more as a 93min music video than a drama. This film could have done a lot better in portraying more of what was already there. More dialogue, more acting, more of everything, but the film was lacking.

I haven't seen Les Miserables and do not plan to, but I can assure you that the film was also a musical and not even half or quarter as disappointing as this film was. I just feel that they could have done soo much better with this film, the directions and even with a talented cast, not even they could help the narative and make a promising film like this interesting and/or great. Wasted talent on a film with a good idea on paper.

Ok film and gets the point across, but is very poorly delivered and although the cast is great, watch if you are feeling festive or you have to see a film with your favourite stars in or just wait for it to come on TV.

(film review) - The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

So, it has been a year since I last did a review on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and it has come around again in which the sequel has just come out and I have seen it and it is absolutely great.

Just so you know from the get go, I liked the first hobbit film a great deal. One thing I didn't mention in my review was, although the film was beautiful and was at a steady pace, I did feel at a certain point that this film was dragging a little or possibly I was expecting a little bit more than just a steady pace. It might have been when my mind clock/stopwatch alerted me to the fact that this film has gone past the 2 hour mark, in which I'm sure this happens with a lot of people. But for the sequel in the Hobbit Trilogy, my clock/stopwatch may have done a single beep rather than alarm bells ringing for 5mins.

The film starts with Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) in a Bar and gets approached by Gandelf the Grey (Ian McKellen). They have a conversation which then takes us to where we last left off in the first Hobbit film. The Dwarfs and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) are still trying to make their way to the Mountain because they need to obtain the Arkenstone and potentially slay a dragon. However, as the adventure would go, they come across Spiders that want to eat them, Elves that want to kill them, a Bowman who is trying to hide them and a Dragon who is trying to burn them...oh, and everything else in sight.

There isn't any real point in going on about the film to be honest as I'd only be repeating what I had said before about the previous Hobbit film and the sequel trilogies. Peter Jackson is an epic storyteller and his direction is great. Yes, he is milking the book for all it's worth, but when you tell a story like this, to me, it only makes sense. A lot of people might feel disappointed with this film and/or pleased that this film has elements added to the very thin book which is the Hobbit or some "key" elements taken away from the book. Some might argue that some parts of the film is relevant to the story and are not needed, but sometimes in story telling, the very detail which is unheard of or not mentioned can also play a key role in some cases.

The cinematography, the acting, the flow of the film, in which I might add was much faster paced and laced with more action and tension than the first film. The action, like I said, the fight scenes, MORE majestic. As I mentioned earlier, I did think during the film, "this is a long film", but I knew it was and I stayed engaged, where in the first film, although I loved it, there was more of a sigh when I remembered how long the film was during watching it. And although I care not much for the Dwalfs, I absolutely love their dynamics and co-ordination. They flow like 1 constant conscience although they are all very different individuals. The comedy was there as well and not to mention Legolas. Legolas for me was the reason why I was more hyped about this film over the first film. Legolas drew me to this film as I absolutely love his character. Such a bad ass.

If you love the sequel trilogies and the first Hobbit Movie, you will love this sequel in the prequel Trilogy. When you get to the Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) part as well, you will be fuming at the very end. Yes, 365 or so days until the next film, There and Back Again. Enjoy!

Tuesday, 10 December 2013

(film review) - Carrie

This might be one of my shortest reviews. Not because the film was wack, but more to do with seeing this film for the first time without no previous film to go from. Even taking this film on it's own merit, there is not a lot to talk about.

As mentioned in wiki, the definition of a Reboot is as follows "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning". With that said, in film and in hollywood, reboots are done because THEY are running out of ideas (well this is what I think). However, for the most part, reboots were done to revitalise a franchise and as we advance into the future with technologies changing daily, we can retell a story much better than how it was previously done before (sometimes). Nowadays, it is all about money, it would seem. Contracts and competition. An example of this would be, the new Spider-Man franchise.
To be honest, a lot of people won't understand the ins and outs and for the majority, most people simply won't and don't care. I mean all we want to do is watch a good film, right? When it comes to reboots, I don't have any real issues with them. I've see Scarface with Al Pacino which is a reboot. Man of Steel with Henry Cavil, which is a reboot and so is Star Wars with Chris Pine. However, whilst some reboots do well and even make the series much more relevant to the current era we live in, some just don't do well at all.

Carrie on the other hand was just a reboot for the sake of advancing a story to a modern era. Where the first film came out in 1976, a 2013 version was needed. Or not of course. Some things are best left as classics.

Carrie (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a young shy, unassertive girl approaching pubity living with her religious but disturbed mother, Margaret White (Julianne Moore) in the small town in Maine. Upon having her first menstrual period in school in the showers, Carrie is teased by her class and the event is recorded on a mobile phone by a bully. After being ridiculed by her class and sent home, her mother takes it out on her as she believes that the Menstrual cycle is a sin. Later Carrie discovers that she may have telekinesis and researches and practises it. Tommy, asks Carrie to go with him to the prom and on the night, when pig blood gets dumbed onto her, Carrie looses it and tears everything down using her manifested new powers.

For me, I can barely remember the original film and although there are elements I remember such as the pigs blood being dumbed on her and some scenes of the house, that is really about it. Although this film is a rehash of the previous film, I don't think the film offered much suspense or thriller. Yes it is a Horror and there were some parts where I was horrified by what I was seeing, but all in all, the film didn't offer much rather than bring a past film from the 70's to a new audience.
Chloe is a great actor and so is Julianne Moore, so although everything was acted out well, there was not much to the story. Maybe they should have changed it a little Total Recall.
An ok film, but nothing special and somewhat unnecessary.

Sunday, 17 November 2013

(film review) - Gravity

I really want to make a gravity joke but right now, I can't even think straight.

If you are interested in this film after seeing the trailer, then this film is a must see. I saw it in 2D and from one of my closest mates, he stated to me that I have failed. So, I will reiterate. If you are interested in this film after seeing the trailer, this film MUST be seen in 3D. However, if you care not for the film, then read no further.
The film stars Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone who is on her first space shuttle mission aboard the space shuttle Explorer. Already floating in space on a space walk to carry out repairs/services on a space telescope, she is accompanied by Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and a red shirt (he didn't really have a red shirt, but...). As they are carrying out astronaut stuff, things most of us don't care about, mission control in Houston warn them of a russian missile strike on a Satellite somewhere else orbiting earth which causes a chain reaction of space debris which is heading their way. This is when everything goes awry.
There is nothing else to mention about this film other than what you saw in the trailer, someone floating in space and debris flying everywhere. All you really need to know is that, this film had me GRIPPED onto the edge of my seat. My mouth was open and I was watching intently.
Although there isn't much of a storyline, nor beginning, middle or end, the film does a huge amount to get your attention and hold onto you for the entire film. The tension is intense. From the opening credits to the end credits, I was heavily involved.

The special effects and the camera shots were more than amazing, so amazing, I heard some people thought the actors were really in space. Any kind of view you can think of was most likely used in such a captivating way, you could only look and marvel at the beautiful of it all. I know I have said previously that Oblivion is a beautiful looking film, but this for me steals that away within the first 10mins. More than stunning visuals and great acting by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. The music, the tension, everything. With the way the film was directed and shot by Alfonso Cuaron, nothing short of excellent. I could only say that if the special effects were not that great, this film would have looked shoddy and dated. If there is anything I would have wanted, would have been MORE. But after watching the film, you will realise that although the film doesn't last very long, this is more than acceptable. I think the biggest thing which will get you about this film is, what would YOU do in a situation like this?

Have a watch, I am sure you will enjoy.

Saturday, 2 November 2013

(film review) - Thor: The Dark World

For those of you who know me, I try and keep abreast of all the latest information coming out of Marvel in regards to film, and DC for that matter. I have never been a comic fanatic, but I love some of the character's DC and Marvel have produced. I like different character's for different reasons and so should anybody else, I guess. But I mean, if I were to choose between two clever/intelligent rich guys from Marvel or DC, I would pick Batman. Batman will always win in a fight. Spider-Man is one of my favourites with Wolverine coming second (out of Marvel anyway), so you can imagine my excitement should they place them in the same Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sh*t, they don't even need to use Hugh Jackman (I know, I know)...let's bring on somebody else to play him, I'am totally fine with that as long as it has everything that makes, Wolverine, Wolverine. Fan boys would be pissed, but who really cares, really? Dude better just do a fine job as Wolvie, right? Big shoes to fill.

Anyway, I've digressed a lot and my main point was, "The f*ck is a Thor?".
Well, if you have not seen the first film, Thor, I'll briefly explain to you, who he is.

Thor is the son of Norse God Odin, the Allfather of the Gods and ruler of Asgard. Thor has superhuman strength, superhuman speed, superhuman reflexes and agility, superhuman stamina, superhuman senses (for tracking objects), can travel through time, can withstand physical attacks making him almost invulnerable, he can fly, he can fly between worlds and he carries a Hammer as well as being the God of Thunder and Lightening.

That is what a Thor, is.

Although he has a love hate relationship with his brother, Thor loves his brother dearly even if his brother does nothing more than try to ruin his day by being mischievous, causing anarchy and pandemonium by attacking worlds or the inhabitants of. You could see more of that in the Avengers film.
Thor: The Dark World is more of a tale of revenge from a Dark Elf named Malekith who was banished by Thor's grandfather, Bor. Now awoken from his sleep, Malekith seeks revenge on all of Asgard and Thor, running out of options chooses to release his brother from his prison for his crimes to side with him in order to defeat Malekith and save Asgard.

That is pretty much it, in a nutshell and although there is some more to it I am missing out, I've got to point out that, this film for me was better than the first film. Not only did they keep what worked in the first film, they improved on it by showing us more of everything. There is more of Asgard to look at, more from Heimdall, more "brotherly love" from Loki and Thor and although there wasn't any of the S.H.I.E.L.D characters or any other Avenger to assist Thor in his struggle, this film did well on it's own merits. The story was decent, the visuals and action were excellent and although after seeing all these superheroes get together to defeat threats in the past, i.e Avengers, you can't help but ask yourself, where were the others at this point.
It does make me wonder, at what point in this Marvel Cinematic Universe's time doe this happen in comparison to Avengers and Ironman 3?

On a side note, sometimes you want to stick with the same director for films incase the guy who takes it over cuffs it up. In this case, Alan Taylor seamlessly continues Thor's story. Now we must wait until God knows when for a sequel.

Anyway, Enjoy

Friday, 16 August 2013

(film review) - Kick-Ass 2

So, a lil while back, Thursday, 8 April 2010 to be precise, I did a blog on Kick-Ass and I said and I quote "I had NO IDEA what this film was about. Spider-Man? Batman? Green Lantern? Some silly teen movie with something random like superheroes and making the film a whole lot shittier than the idea of making 'Blood & Chocolate' a film?". Well although Blood & Chocolate still remains to be one of my most shittiest films I have ever seen and now that I have seen the first Kick-Ass, I was somewhat prepared for Kick-Ass 2. With that said, the film still managed to surprise me with what it entailed.

The film carries on from the first Kick-Ass Movie where Dave Lizewski () has retired from crime fighting, but Hit-Girl () continues. The actions of Dave aka Kick-Ass has inspired members of the city to also become costumed vigilantes who are trying to seek justice, just as Dave started out. Red Mist (), still not over his fathers death changes his name to 'The Motherf*cker' and goes all out on a revenge crusade to kill Kick-Ass.

Things start to get out of hand for Kick-Ass and his new team of friends led by 'Colonel Stars & Stripes' () when 'The Motherf*cker' presents himself, wrecking carnage everywhere. With 'Hit Girl' trying to start High School and trying to be a normal teenage girl, she has her own problems to deal with let along the haunting words of her father, her guardian and the pressures of vigalante work.

If you have seen the first film, there is no doubt you will like the second installment. Although the film isn't as FRESH as it was the first time around, like the first Hangover film, the film still carries the blood, the gore, the shock value, the carnage and the teenage slapstick/adult humour.

This film isn't for the faint hearted as it is very action oprientated, but is able to keep you very entertained and interested even in the non-action scenes involving Hit Girl and her teenage High School trials and tribulations trying to be a "Normal" High School freshman. The fight scenes are excellent, as well as the pacing and dialogue. Visually entertaining and every bit the same as the first film. My only gripe witht he film is that the film should have had a bit MORE to the gore. More blood, more shocking, grisly and grim deaths and I feel the film would be much better than the first. An A La Bigger and Better. I just felt like they stuck with the same formulae which if fine, but didn't go beyond to add more to it. I understand the film was toned down from the comics, but I personally wanted more

Go see this, you will like if you liked the first one!

Friday, 14 June 2013

(film review) - Man of Steel

After seeing Man of Steel, I was left a little perplexed. I wasn't sure what to think overall about the whole film.
I did feel disappointed and I did feel the film cold have been better. However, if I were to give this film a number out of 10 with 10 being really good and 1 being really bad, this film would get 7.5 and not 9 or 10 in what it seems everyone else seems to be giving it.

I can debate this all day! ALL DAMN DAY! But I won't. I will only explain my view of the film from what I experienced from the story and how it was delivered.

First of all, Everyone knows the story of Superman and there has been 5 films before this one. (No one rates the fourth Reeves one)

The chances are of the audience knowing Superman's abilities is very high anyway.

So, with that said, I'll keep this Sypnosis very brief. Jor-El has a child with his wife on a dying planet. He sends newborn child in a space capsule across the stars to the Sol System to land on Earth to live so that their race does not go completely extinct. Child grows up with installed values but before becoming a shining beacon of Hope, he must confront General Zod and his plans. Also being from Clark's home planet of Kyrpton, Clark is left with a choice to decide whether to side with the human's or to decide with his own.

My understanding is that the Director was not going to revisit all the same scenario's and stories from previous films. This film is purely about an alien trying to fit into a world who will "fear" him for being different. The film is also about Zod and why he is the way he is because he ISN'T necessarily a villain.

This film most importantly, IS NOT...and I repeat NOT a Clark Kent film. This story is not about Clark Kent being Superman. It's about Superman being an Alien. From when you understand that, you will understand the film.

The film has received mixed reviews and as I said before, 7.5 out of 10, I believe the film will raise to 8.5 for one simple reason. Should they do a sequel and this film is more about Clark Kent juggling his life of being Clark & Superman, then the previous film, Man of Steel would make more sense and give the film Justice. Kind of an odd way to look at grading this film, but I felt this film was not executed well.

Reason's why I didn't like the film is because there was too much chopping and changing and skipping bits. There was no character development whatsoever and Superman himself was kinda dry... However, the small bits of the clark kent story (shown as flashbacks) were good including the values which were installed into him making him the man that he is. The fighting goes without saying and the film on a whole was good. But if the director made the film longer and added more detail, I would have put this film on parr with Batman. It just wasn't delivered the way Batman was. The reason could be purely due to the rehashing of the story. It has been done again and again and AGAIN!!!

I would also like to add, the writers and Director wanted to make a Superman film we haven't seen before. One where people get to see Superman BEING Superman. We all wanna see Superman tump guys over (in which he can't do with humans). And this is THAT film, so this is why you will love the film as well as the origins explain in more detail.

By the way...I don't believe the other films previously explored how he discovered his strength, heat vision or Ice Breath. My understanding is, these came into knowledge as he got older but everyone has seen Smallville or know what it's about.

In conclusion, this is a good film. Like Batman Begins but a little different in delivery and has grand scale destruction with a lil love interest thrown in there. If you don't know with whom, you haven't been, reading, listening, watching, living.
Go See It!!!

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

(film review) - Iron Man 3

Most people love technology and flashy hi-tech stuff. Moreover, having an Iron Man suit is something you are likely to put on your Christmas wish-list. I mean, who wouldn't want to shoot energy proton lasers from their chest or hands? Better yet, running late for work? Suit-Up and fly to work. With invincible armor, you can do almost anything you like, right? Well, sort of, but it doesn't stop you from being human.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has endured a lot of things. Since becoming Iron Man, his life has become more important and at the same time, even more at risk. There are bad guys everywhere who want a piece of that armor or a least some kind of armor which works just the same. Obadiah Stane with the Iron Monger suit. Ivan Vanko as Whiplash with his energy powered "whips". And with almost losing his life, again, after aliens attack New York, Tony Stark is left in a state or shock and restlessness. I mean, from someone being someone who is super intelligent, one of quite a bit, to having a armor powered suit which renders him invincible, to fighting and trying to save the planet from an alien takeover/war with a Norse GOD, a Super Soldier who was frozen in captivity and a man who can double in size, strength, leap huge distances and turn green, Tony doesn't sit well with this at all and has been finding this hard to adjust to. It is a lot, if you think about it.

This time around though, we have Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), a disabled Scientist who works with Maya Hansen, the inventor of Extremis, who at a New Years Eve Party in 1999, is celebrating with Tony and Killian where Killian offers Tony a job with Advanced Idea Mechanics. Tony turns the job down and years later, Killian is a successful business man in science.

However, The Mandarin emerges causing terror, with threats, jammed public broadcasting and a string of bombings everywhere which leaves Tony's pal and security chief Happy Hogan in hospital. At this point, this is the last straw for Tony who leaves the Mandarin a televised threat in which the Mandarin excepts the invitation by bombing Starks Mansion. Presumed dead and far away from home, Tony must uncover the truth about the Mandarin, the bombings and a possible love interest in Killian to Pepper Potts as he has been driving her away with his recent behaviour.

I think I was expecting too much from this film as I felt it could have been better. But with that said, remembering how the film played out, the acting, the plot, the twists, the technology and the action; this film does everything the second film doesn't and keeps the film a little bit more grounded and closer to the first Iron Man film. Not to say, in my opinion of course that Iron Man 2 wasn't good as I liked it, but Iron Man 3 excels where Iron Man 2 doesn't. The film is darker, funnier and has a more humane feel to it. The Iron Man suits are always great to see and in action, especially when 6 - 7 and then some, fly to Tony's aid in the final scenes with the bad guy. Even War Machine aka The Iron Patriot has a bigger role in this film than the previous films and added a little bit of that buddy on buddy back to back fighting Iron Man 2 left us with.

If you enjoyed the previous films, this one will be no different.

Friday, 17 May 2013

(film review) - Star Trek Into Darkness

I was thinking to myself just now, 2009? I'm sure I did a Star Trek 2009 review!? So, I went trekking through my archives and never found it. Needless to say, you probably saw what I did there, lol, but that isn't why I mentioned it. I saw Star Trek 2009 and it was such a refreshing retro futuristic film that if you know what I mean, then, you know what I mean.

Just to give an idea of the film.

The film starts with Chris Hemsworth (Pre-Thor) as the first officer, George Kirk of the USS Kelvin, sustaining heavy attack by a Romulan ship in which commander Nero (Eric Bana) is searching for Spock and sends the USS Kelvin into oblivion just after George manages to rescue the crew by sending them to safety and his pregnant wife Winona who is about to give birth to James T. Kirk. Years later, reckless yet intelligent Kirk joins starfleet and meets up with emotionless Spock, has a bar punch up along the way, an allergic reaction, becomes a major pain in the ears for Spock who ejects him off the ship onto some 'any' planet and then manages to catch up with Nero by using the gas clouds of titan as a cloaking device eventually and...yeah, Kirk saves the day and everyone cheers. Needless to say, I found the film extremely sexy! There was just too much going on in the film.

This new film continues the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and his adventures on the Starship Enterprise to boldly go where no man has gone before and the film starts with Captain Kirk and Dr. 'Bones' McCoy (Karl Urban) running for their lives as they try their hardest not to be killed by the primitive civilisation who dwell on the planet they are observing. After violating the Prime Directive in order to save Spock's (Zachary Quinto) life, Kirk is demoted by Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and has been reduced to first officer of his own ship.

After a meeting is held in regards to a former starfleet agent going "rogue", the meeting is attacked by said rogue agent in which Kirk and his crew are assigned by Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) with the task of hunting rogue agent down. However, they find out that rogue agent, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is currently hiding on the Klingon homeworld of Kronos in which no starfleet ship may go near without igniting a full scale war between the federation and the klingon empire.

As I'm not one to spoil movies for the viewers, I can only say that if you liked the first Star Trek 2009, you are going to absolutely love this one. The first film was just sexy. Considering how old school and futuristic the enterprise is, makes you appreciate what they were trying to do back in the 60's and to have the starship re-imagined from the outside in or inside out also makes you appreciate the future of things. Equipment, vehicles etc. Just everything was done in a old school way, like the TV series, but with modern imaginings of future concepts. This film continues this and basically improves on the first film in many ways other than character development. I found that the first film established the characters a bit more as this film didn't focus on much of the characters other than Kirk, Spock & Uhura. Even when Scotty got his screen time, meant that Sulu, Bones & Chekov didn't get as much time to shine. Not to say that it wasn't there, but not as much as the "main" characters.

Cumberbatch was awesome as the main antagonist and delivered a brilliant performance. Clearly stealing many of the scenes and just doing everything right! Peter Weller also did a great job and I can only say that his performance on top of Cumberbatch gave you the 'Bang for your Buck'.

But like I said before, if you liked the first one, I can not think of a reason as to why you wouldn't like this new one. The sound the starship makes going into warp is enough to send you into a frenzy. And without spoiling it, but the last few scenes involving Spock are absolutely priceless! Should J J Abrams do something similar for Star Wars, I'm sure he will capture the hearts of nerds everywhere!

Go watch if you like action, a touch of comedy and good over evil and sci-fi. If you don't like any of that, then your just boring, aren't you!

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

(film review) - Oblivion

Only through watching this film, I realise I have a degree of liking for Tom Cruise. I don't love the guy or love his films, but I do enjoy them. I sat down in the cinema watching this film while the person next to me was whining about how I'm never picking a film again and how they can't stand Tom Cruise, I on the other hand thought it was bizzarre. I mean, I've said it before, Tom Cruise in a film is, well, Tom Cruise. Kind of like how Jason Statham is Jason Statham and some actors don't necessarily totally embody themselves into a character and make that character their own. You could say that about a lot of actors and maybe say, this is bad acting. But when I got hom I realised, maybe it isn't bad acting, it's a method of having a living person stand out as that person rather than a character played out. So instead of seeing the characters played by Tom, you see Tom playing different characters, which is a lot different. Anyway, just something I was thinking. think about it.

However, after all of that, I'd like to say I enjoyed the film. Why? because it's a Tom cruise film and they are always entertaining and you not what to expect. Action, some romance and a little cheese here and there. Two, I found the story really good. I'll explain.

Jack Reacher is a...sorry, Jack Harper is a technician of unit Tech 49 who, along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are the clean up crew of a desecrated earth in the year 2077, 50 years after aliens partly destroyed the moon which in turn destroys most of planet Earth. They are assigned to maintain patrol of the planet or area, ensuring all drones are operational and the resources extracting machines used for gathering earth resources are fully operational so all contents can be transported to the human colony situated on Saturns largest moon, Titan. Scavengers or Scavs for short are beings who dwell on earth who make monitoring of drones and the resource extraction machines difficult to take care of.

With only two weeks until Jack and Victoria head back to the colony situated on Saturns largest moon, an alien craft crash lands and when Jack investigates the crash, he finds the female of his dreams, literally. From this point, Jack starts to question his memories as well as his actions and who he works for.

Without spoiling the film, I could only say that this film is a combination of other great films before it. I won't mention them as this will reveal spoilers, but the beauty of the story told, visually is great. At one point, it reminded me of a Halo game. Visually impressive. The weapons, the tech and even the earth. The ruins of planet Earth after Tsunami's, Earthquakes and a Nuke, looks absolutely beautiful. Ice, desert sand dirt and waterfalls and lake make for impressive imagery. Even the Chopper/Jet Jack flies which has an inbuilt bike, yes.....a in built bike you can just pull out and ride away on are amazing. The building they live in and the....EVERYTHING. It's like living in a Apple computer. Sleek and shiney everything. But above all the visuals, if should you be really interested in the story or Tom Cruise being, well....Tom Cruise, I would say stick it out to the end as, maybe it's me...but I didn't expect the story to pan out the way it did. Nice, clever and visually stunning, but from the director of Tron: Legacy, what would you expect? Kind of like Poetry accompanied with a oil painting.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

(film reviews) - Olympus Has Fallen

I read someone before that Olympus Has Fallen is this years Die Hard. Now for those who don't know me, I'm a fan of Bruce Willis. I LOVE DIE HARD MOVIES!!! And for those who know me would understand the puzzled/confused face I pulled. So, I'm sure you could understand that a comment like that would be Blaspheming on the whole Die Hard Movie Franchise especially as a Die Hard movie came out THIS YEAR!!!

(See Review Here: A Good Day To Die Hard)

But the comment was, well, not THAT far from the truth. I still dislike the comment, but after seeing this film after AGDTDH enable me to criticise where necessary.

First of all, the film starts Gerald Butler who I feel is a very decent actor. I do like him and ever since I saw him in 300, I thought, he is THAT guy. Going on to Law Abiding Citizen, he solidified that feeling. He plays a former US Army Ranger Mike Banning, who is the lead Secret Service Agent assigned to head the Presidential Detail for the President of the United States of America, Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart). However, due to a road accident costing the life of the First Lady, Margaret Asher (Ashley Judd) where Mike saves the president instead of her, for obvious reasons, Mike is then demoted as he triggers Ashley's memories of the accident and works in the Treasury Department, within eyeshot of White House.

On the day the South Korean Prime Minister Lee Tae-Woo (Keong Sim) attends a meeting at the White House, the White House becomes under attack by Guerilla Forces, overwhelm the White House and take it over. As this is happening, Mike sees this and makes his way towards the White House and enters through the front door. Yes, he enters through the front door.

Now there isn't really anything more to say as I'm sure you are aware by now that the white house is full of goons and Mike has to save the president and stop whatever the terrorist aim to carry out. It kind of reminds me of a game in the late 80's early 90's when your character enters a building and has to clear out all the goons running and gunning, jumping vertically of course. So with that said, you already know the outcome. Predictable, yet still entertaining.
The brutality in this film I feel, separates from the Die Hard movie franchise. It's kind of hard to say, but the Die Hard movies have lots of blood, grisly deaths, bullets, more bullets, explosions, more explosions and a guy in a white vest managing to take out hordes of goons in a white vest and escaping all manor of death situations. This film on the other hand is very similar, but lacks the creativity, the death escapes and the white vest. Not to say that this is a rubbish film, it's really good, but I guess we have seen all these before, right?
Mike is a no nonsense former US Army Ranger. He gets things done with precision. Very smart, understands the minds of terrorists and is somewhat disconnected with reality. However, with this said, he knows he is able to fulfil his duties as an ex Secret Service Agent and get the job done, so he proceeds.

Anyway, I'll draw this review to an end now. The direction, cinematography and story was all excellent. Even better as the film seems more relatable right now in this current climate, but I can't help but think that maybe something else could have happened to kind of make this film slightly different in delivery. Maybe I'm starting to get bored of these types of films and actually want the bad guys to win or pull off their schemes. I mean, at least we could have some crazy sequel where everything is desecrated with little odds but still triumph. Maybe this is what the world is missing in film, Terrorist who actually win in the end, but in the long run, get trampled on. Not that I will always cheer for terrorists, but if they actually won or carried out part/most of their plan, at least as an audience we would have expected it. Other than Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith with the bitter/sweet end, what other film has this kind of outcome. Anyway, watch this film and enjoy it for what it is. Superb acting from Morgan Freeman and Angela Bassett by the way.

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

(film review) - Flight

I almost cried. Like, very almost cried. I was slightly on the verge of crying watching this film and I'm not too proud to admit that. Damn, I'm a grown man and I have feelings too. I understand. I have empathy. And I've got to say, I left the cinema thinking, "That was a Brilliant Movie". Someone asked me if it was Denzel's best performance, hmmm...I don't know. But the story for me was great.

The film is about an Airline Captain named William "Whip" Whitaker (Denzel Washington) who on one day, flies a plane which eventually crashes and he gets knocked out from the impact. However, upon waking up from his state in a hospital, he is crowned a national hero as he was able to saves some lives. But as investigators look into the crash and who or what caused the catastrophe, they say that Whip was flying a plane under the influence of toxins in his blood stream in which they took samples when he was out cold and it also meant that he could spend a lot of years in prison for manslaughter.

Whip's old friend Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) who has been recently appointed to represent the airline pilots union comes to his aid and gets attoney Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) to help Whip in any way possible, which includes escaping jail time and to get the NTSB off his back. As simple/difficult as this sounds, Whip has his own personal demons he needs to battle as well as trying to stay out of the media and public eye.

Like I said earlier, this is a very good film and I almost cried. I felt for the character Whip, not that I could relate, but the story was very compelling. I can't say I have experience or a lot of knowledge in the area, but the acting, the story, the direction, it was all just excellent to me. I've also said that it is hard not to like Denzil, especially when he does performances like this and from a director like Robert Zemeckis, I can only say this is a quality film. Go and watch the film. It is A LOT. I'm sure during the film, you will think about a Holiday...and then some.

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

(film review) - Gangster Squad

So, late last year I was watching an IGN reviw about something, I can't remember right now and it was mentioning films to look out for. I believe it was someone talking about Peter Jackson 'The Hobbit', then went on to say, Ironman 3 and a few others I simply didn't care for or remember, but Gangster Squad stood out.
I remember seeing the trailer and thinking, "Damn, this looks interesting" So, I set out to watch it and boy did I find this film, a very good watch.

It stars then child Goonies actor, Josh Brolin (I had to say that as I think that is amazing and he has come a long way) as Sgt. John O'Mara who is personally selected by chief Bill Parker (Nick Nolte) to take down Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a rising to power gangster in post WWII Los Angeles. In order to do this, John must get together the finiest men and form the Gangster Squad in order to help him take down L.A's most powerful figure against his reluctant wife Connie's (Mireille Enos) wishes. To take down Cohen and his merry men, John bands together men of different skills and uses: - Detective Coleman Harris (Anthony Mackie), Wire-Tapper Conway Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi) & Gangster Killer Max Kennard (Robert Patrick).That is basically it. John heads out to first cripple Mickey's Buiness, then eventually cripple him and put him behind bars.

Now this film is nothing we haven't seen before as I'm sure you know there are hundreds of Gangsta movies based on this era. You know the outcome (unless there is a spin thrown onto it) and frankly, you'd watch it just to see how this Gangster film delivers. And boy does this film deliver. Action, action and action from the moment the opening credits stop rolling. Actually, I don't even think the opening credits were rolling before you saw something happen to this guy. I won't say what. Then Something else happen to another guy. It was all going on, just to show you who was the man about town. Tyranny I believe the word is. And John's assemblement was so well chosen, thinking about it now, it was like watching The Avengers, without the superhero flashy colours and powers and replaced with tommy guns, pistols and sticks of dynamite. Granted the film may not make as much as Avengers did and may not appeal to everyone, but for me, this film was just as good. Serious bits. Sad bits. Sexy bits and ACTION. Through a few parts of the film, i was cheering or making excitement noises like 'Ooooooh' when Athony Mackie did anything. The film was very well scripted, acted out and the direction and flow of the film was steady. No boring or dull moments and a few laugh out loud moments, you know LOL!

If you like gangster films there isn't a reason you shouldn't like this.

Wednesday, 2 January 2013

(film review) - Jack Reacher

Such a simple name for such a simple guy. Jack Reacher. A name that kinda sticks a little as well if you say it a few times.

Tom Cruise is Jack Reacher. And although a lot of the times, if not nearly every single film Tom Cruise has ever done, bar Tropic Thunder and as an IMF Agent, Tom Cruise is like Jason Statham to me. He is only 1 Character. I think there comes a time in viewing history that an actor doesn't necesarily look like a character, only who they really are. And I think this is due to make-up or even bad acting. Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham act to be all these different characters, yet to some people, i.e, myself they just look like themselves in a different movie. Maybe it's my lack of imagination. But Michael Fassbender, Sir Ian McKennen, Hugo Weaving & Johnny Depp to me, AREN'T who they are, but the characters they portray. Do you get what I mean? Maybe it's just me. However with that said, it doesn't take away from the movie for me. For example, I saw Safe starring Jason Statham recently and although I said to myself, "ahhh, another Jason Statham film" I still enjoyed the film for what it was. Plus Jason Statham does do entertaining films.

This film however, I'm going to dig into it.

Imagine, you commit a crime in which you can virtually get away with it and leave no clue, prints or trail, but just as you think you are in the clear, this guy comes along and tells you he's got you by the short and curly's, all because of the way he processes information and removes and fits pieces of a puzzle together. Moreover, he has no regard for anything and nothing to lose as well as naturally being a "ghost" and can't be found. Yeah, you would find yourself in a bit of a pickle.

The film revolves around a sniper and him being accused of killing innocent people in broad daylight in a park. Before he is sentenced to either death or jail, he asks for Jack Reacher to help. His Lawyer (Rosamund Pike), wanting to prove his innocence but isn't quite sure starts to gather the information they know about their client but bumps into Jack who appears out of nowhere. With the little information she has on Jack, she then asks for his help as the police, led by Emerson (David Oyelowo), especially as her client asked for him specifically, in solving the case. Problems arrise as the closer they get to a lead, people would go missing or die putting their lives in grave danger. In addition,

First and formost, although this is a good film, this film isn't really cinema worthy IMO. It felt like it dragged a little, but not to say all cinema movies must be packed to the brim with action, love and suspense, but I just felt that this was a really good film but was a waste of time in the cinema. Some people would enjoy it, but I think I possibly wanted a little more action from it as there wasn't a great deal of action, but there was a lot of suspense.
The dialogue was really good and the story was well scripted. Clever/whitty lines, phrases and even a sense of realisation as to what the real world has become.
Someone I know said it sticks very close to the book, which is a good sign and Tom Cruise for me was more, Jack Reacher! (See what I said earlier about actors playing roles)
Another thing I must point out though, this is not a Michael Bay film. What I mean by this is, people do not explode and there is not a lot of blood and guts everywhere or anything like that at all. No wild car chases or unauthorised explosions, this film is a real as hell! Not trying to say that Michael Bay's films are over the top, but this films had 1 car chase. I don't even think there was a single explosion or someone flying through a window. I mean, I left the cinema thinking, "wow, that was a realistic film" and for those who want something realistic, this is it!

I definately say, watch this film especially if you want something a bit more realistic with action and drama. However, you don't necessarily need the cinema for this!